Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And what type of job are you suggesting that I look for? This should be interesting, considering that you know nothing about my field.
You haven't said what your MS is in!
You think I don't know anything about civil engineering? I have a number of CEs in my family, I know what kind of work they do. A BIL has a BSCE from the University of Omaha (now the University of Nebraska at Omaha) and an MBA; he never had any trouble finding a job. My SIL is a CE, has an MSCE, also no probs finding a job.
In a long career I dealt with the BS MS thing a good bit. In general an MS was considered the equivalent of two to three years experience and they were hired at appropriately higher grade levels.
And I think this was pretty well correct. They learned more but in the same ways that a BS did. When you get to Phd programs you get something different. They do not merely learn some more of the same but get off into working the areas not covered in conventional classes. You had to be careful though. A given Phd could know all there is to know about a very narrow subject. And that is not good unless you happen to need that very narrow subject.
I don't think anyone showed an "irrational prejustice (sic) against PhDs. What I do think is most PhD programs tend to prepare graduates for work in academia and don't provide necessarily the skills best suited for non academic work. Essentially a PhD grad has to "unlearn" some of what they learned sort of in a "go back two spaces" before moving forward again.
It makes little sense. What "skills" does a B.S. have which a Ph.D. doesnt have or cannot master? Ph.D. programs are just taking classes, passing tests + doing varied amount of research, from very little to a great deal . Taking classes and passing tests part is the same for B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. So basically you are saying that doing little bit of research irreversibly damage Ph.D.s from standpoint of non academic work while providing no skills B.S. programs provide. That is just insane. One can earn a Ph.D. in less than 3 years, some B.S. graduates take longer than that to wait tables and "discover" themselves upon graduation. It is very amusing to read that doing something for 3 years unsuits somebody for anything.
I believe It is mostly status related, a ph.d. brings unwanted tension in the non ph.d. work environment due to insecurities of the non ph.d.s. On the other hand a ph.d. seeking a non academic, non r&d work is perceived as unwanted by r&d world and therefore damaged somehow in some hidden ways, a seconfd rate, a loser in vernacular. So it is a wild mix of insecurities and feeling superior to.
That proverbial ivory tower is just as cut throat as anything else, if not more, a ph.d. student as a rule is funded through some sort of a grant his professor won to do X, Y, Z. There are deadlines and targets, and then a professor needs to get more money, in order to do so he must show results. To paraphrase a post in this thread Everybody has to pitch in and shovel. Graduate research is not cushy 9 to 5 work. It's all about quickly figuring out the quickest way to produce publishable results using limited amount of funds and then 100% about schedule execution, that graduate assistanship does not last forever.
Last edited by RememberMee; 12-29-2016 at 10:08 PM..
It makes little sense. What "skills" does a B.S. have which a Ph.D. doesnt have or cannot master? Ph.D. programs are just taking classes, passing tests + doing varied amount of research, from very little to a great deal . Taking classes and passing tests part is the same for B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. So basically you are saying that doing little bit of research irreversibly damage Ph.D.s from standpoint of non academic work while providing no skills B.S. programs provide. That is just insane. One can earn a Ph.D. in less than 3 years, some B.S. graduates take longer than that to wait tables and "discover" themselves upon graduation. It is very amusing to read that doing something for 3 years unsuits somebody for anything.
I believe It is mostly status related, a ph.d. brings unwanted tension in the non ph.d. work environment due to insecurities of the non ph.d.s. On the other hand a ph.d. seeking a non academic, non r&d work is perceived as unwanted by r&d world and therefore damaged somehow in some hidden ways, a seconfd rate, a loser in vernacular. So it is a wild mix of insecurities and feeling superior to.
If you think a PhD is just taking classes and passing tests, then you really have no idea what a PhD is about. Obviously you aren't reading what I wrote. Oh, and the average time to PhD is 8 years with the average age at graduation of 33.
If you think a PhD is just taking classes and passing tests, then you really have no idea what a PhD is about. Obviously you aren't reading what I wrote. Oh, and the average time to PhD is 8 years with the average age at graduation of 33.
33!? Since when? DH was 31, and was one of the older ones in his group, and the PhD was in physics! I've known engineers to do one in 4 years post BS, putting them at about 26-27. 8 years post BS would be about 30-31 anyway. I also think the PP had a point about what skills would a BS holder have that a PhD doesn't.
If you think a PhD is just taking classes and passing tests, then you really have no idea what a PhD is about. Obviously you aren't reading what I wrote. Oh, and the average time to PhD is 8 years with the average age at graduation of 33.
I clearly mentioned doing a varied amount of research on top of taking classes. Did you read that? Earning a Ph.D. in humanities could take a long time to complete, as for sci&eng it takes much less time, especially engineering, 3-4 years, sometimes less, depending on a school. For one reason - most sci&eng grad students do not pay for their education, they receive research assistanships, while a humanities ph.d. could cost some students a fortune due to lack of assistantships. Naturally, a rare sci&eng professor can be certain about continuous 8 years long funding of this or that project, 2-3 years funding is a norm, so ph.d. students are expected to wrap up and complete research within those 2-3 years. To expedite things even more - a good chunk of sci&eng grad students are foreigners from the poor countries, they have no money to call their own, they cannot work outside of universities, so availability of research funds should be precisely synchronized with duration of a ph.d. program, which frequently means a ph.d.in 3-4 years or out.
My MS is in Civil Engineering. Specifically, in transportation.
Quote:
You think I don't know anything about civil engineering? I have a number of CEs in my family, I know what kind of work they do. A BIL has a BSCE from the University of Omaha (now the University of Nebraska at Omaha) and an MBA; he never had any trouble finding a job. My SIL is a CE, has an MSCE, also no probs finding a job.
I do have a job, but my employer makes it very clear that the MS is meaningless.
So the question becomes "Are PhD programs turning out graduates with the skills needed to perform in non academic environments or are they primarily focused on producing professors?" Thoughts/comments/observations??
Both, but the tilt in either direction depends on the field of study. In my fields, agricultural and applied economics, natural resource and environmental economics, there are many private sector jobs for people with both MS and Ph.Ds. Also, there are probably more MS than PH.D trained people in my field who have become highly successful in the private sector. In addition, I have known a number of former Ph.D colleagues who couldn't make it in the private sector as consultants/researchers, but who are doing well in academia.
If you only have an MS, you have to improve your theoretical and technical skills on the job to get ahead, and you have to be able to communicate well in writing and verbally in ways that non-academics can understand.
33!? Since when? DH was 31, and was one of the older ones in his group, and the PhD was in physics! I've known engineers to do one in 4 years post BS, putting them at about 26-27. 8 years post BS would be about 30-31 anyway. I also think the PP had a point about what skills would a BS holder have that a PhD doesn't.
A lot of people (like me) return to grad school after spending some years out in the working world.
A lot of people (like me) return to grad school after spending some years out in the working world.
For a PhD? tnff is talking about 8 years of full-time school for a PhD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
